Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 97

Hebrews 8:8. The following quotation is made from Jeremiah 31:31, "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel."

A refutation of the interpretation given by the Christians to this verse, has been offered in the First Part of this work, Chapter 29. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in verse 13 of the same chapter, says, "In that he saith a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." The writer was not aware that spiritual matters are worn out like old garments. He might have found a correct opinion in Psalms 111:7, 8, "The works of His hands are truth and judgment; faithful are all His ordinances; well supported for ever and made with truth and integrity."

Equally decided are the words of Isaiah on this subject. He says, chapter 40:8, "Grass drieth up, the flower withereth, but the word of our God shall stand for ever." 

 Hebrews 8 is the chapter where the author argues for the superiority of the Messianic covenant over the Mosaic covenant. I gave arguments about the passage in Jeremiah in my sermon on the subject.

There is a bit of irony here. The author of Hebrews is not saying that God's commands to Israel are fading away. He is pointing out that the days of the temple system are numbered. Indeed, not long afterward, the war against Rome brought about the total destruction of the temple. Not one stone was laid upon another, but the entire structure was obliterated by General Titus's army.

The Old Covenant was fully dependent upon the land and the sacrificial system in the temple. Without the land and without the temple, there was no true Judaism. This is why most of Judaism's denominations disappeared after the temple was destroyed.

What did the rabbis do? They contrived a system where the synagogue replaced the temple, minyan prayer replaced sacrifice, and the Oral Law became moulded to justify all these changes. The rabbis contrived prooftexts based on laughably implausible interpretations, such as translating the end of Hosea 14:2 as justification that our words are a legitimate substitute for sacrifice. The verse says nothing of the sort, since the temple itself was in service and needed no substitute for its sacrifice. The verse is about the people of Israel fulfilling their promise to thank God if they were to be delivered. Even if we translate the word as "bulls" rather than "fruit," the passage is still a metaphor that our words are an offering to God, but not that they can legitimately replace sacrifice.

As a bonus, the difference between "bulls our lips" (פרים שפתינו) and "fruit from our lips" (פְּרִי משפתינו) is where the mem is located. Is it on the end of the first word or the beginning of the second? The second makes more grammatical sense, fits better with the historical context, and better fits ancient translations.